Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[Ouroboros]

No. Lucy is not your grandmother.

Of course not.

She was a relative, not a direct descendant.

Just like you're not my brother, but we both are related. Lucy was related to us. No doubt about it.

 

[Ouroboros]

The holy scriptures never say 3.7 billion years anywhere.Noah was not here on earth 10,000 years ago according to scripture.If you go by what scripture says,it points out that man is a little over 6,000 years old.The earth could be possibly billions of years old,but man is only 6,000 years old.According to scripture.

Then scripture is wrong.

How come we have fossils that are up to 150,000 years old of H. sapiens? And up to millions when it comes to the older previous hominids?

Are you a disbeliever in the dating methods too? Not only genetic, osteological, archeological, geological, and biological evidence, but also physics is not open for debate?

 

[Nada]

How about responding to the first part as well?

Though if I understand this correctly... I must first abandon my reason and logic and accept something that logically incoherent in order to somehow "see" the truth?
This sounds like cool-aid drinking kind of reasoning. I must first be delusional to see the truth. Wouldn't I just be delusional?

I did try that one time explaining to you remember? It was like about 2 weeks ago.You asked me many questions and I answered all of your questions.We have been down this path before.I spent a lot of time with you.This time around you just seem to want to argue.I obviously proved my points,not only to you, but many others on this forum.I told you I did post answers on here but you just say no I didn't.I really don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who is just going to argue and disagree with everything I say even when they are incorrect.Don't be upset.Just carry on as you were.You don't need me.Its been cool but I must leave you now.

 

[Ouroboros]

The article he linked as the source shows a footnote numbering of 31, but there is no foot note to explain it.

Not surprised, though.
Watch Tower is well known for its blatant dishonesty.

I saw that too. I can't find it now, but I remember researching this quote some months back, and whatever it was, it wasn't correctly referenced.

 

[Nada]

Then scripture is wrong.

How come we have fossils that are up to 150,000 years old of H. sapiens? And up to millions when it comes to the older previous hominids?

Are you a disbeliever in the dating methods too? Not only genetic, osteological, archeological, geological, and biological evidence, but also physics is not open for debate?

Genesis Flood

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.



https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I did try that one time explaining to you remember? It was like about 2 weeks ago.You asked me many questions and I answered all of your questions.We have been down this path before.I spent a lot of time with you.This time around you just seem to want to argue.I obviously proved my points,not only to you, but many others on this forum.I told you I did post answers on here but you just say no I didn't.I really don't see the point in continuing a conversation with someone who is just going to argue and disagree with everything I say even when they are incorrect.Don't be upset.Just carry on as you were.You don't need me.Its been cool but I must leave you now.

I don't recall us debating a few weeks ago. And I don't recall you answering any of my questions with actual answers so far in this thread. You have bible thumped but not actually brought evidence.

I'm not upset as I don't do that on the internet anymore. It takes a special kind of person to get under my skin.

 

[Nada]

I don't recall us debating a few weeks ago. And I don't recall you answering any of my questions with actual answers so far in this thread. You have bible thumped but not actually brought evidence.

I'm not upset as I don't do that on the internet anymore. It takes a special kind of person to get under my skin.

I can assure you we had a conversation that went on for a few days.I have it on my past forum saved discussions.I remember you specifically.Not to mention your profile pic is unique.I told you already we have nothing more to say.I told you that I wish to no longer continue any more conversations with you.Since you do not understand I will add you to my ignore list.Im sure you can find someone else to argue with.This is the last time we talk.Goodbye now.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I can assure you we had a conversation that went on for a few days.I have it on my past forum saved discussions.I remember you specifically.Not to mention your profile pic is unique.I told you already we have nothing more to say.I told you that I wish to no longer continue any more conversations with you.Since you do not understand I will add you to my ignore list.Im sure you can find someone else to argue with.This is the last time we talk.Goodbye now.

I can't stop you.

 

[McBell]

The rate Bible Student is going he will be posting to himself...

 

[Riverwolf]

I read the reference of serpent as indication of character, rather than form.
And I say, Man diverged from the ape.

That there is an account of sudden divergence centuries before we realize it could be so.....doesn't surprise me.

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If you're talking about the development of full behavioral modernity, it's still unclear whether that was sudden (which, in this scale, is a few thousand years), or gradual (that is, the various pieces that form it developed slowly over time, such that there's no single point in time where we can say, "before this it didn't exist").

And if you truly dislike eating.....you should be looking forward to a spiritual life.

Nah. I tried that, it didn't work. There's far more material pleasures in this world than food.

 

[Riverwolf]

So...you think you are above insult?
Stand before an angel and look him in the eye.....when He calls you...'animal'!

I've been called worse. It would affect me, but I'd probably ask for an explanation before deciding whether to take offense or not.

Just because one insult barely affects me doesn't mean I'm above all insults.

 

[Riverwolf]

Dear Riverwolf, I'm sorry for your confusion. Read Gen 1:6-8 which shows that the FIRST "Heaven" was made the 2nd Day. Perhaps your confusion is caused by your Version of Scripture. Use the King James Version. Then, read Gen 2:4 which shows that other HeavenS (Plural) were made on the THIRD Day, the SAME Day as the formation of Adam's Earth. Gen 1:9-10 Then, add 1 Heaven to other Heavens and you get a minimum of THREE Heavens or Universes within our Multiverse.

First of all, the King Jimmy was the first one I read, and besides the fact that it didn't show any such thing, no, I won't use that one, because the King Jimmy is outdated. It was written in a form of Early Modern English that was archaic at the time, and so half the words used don't mean what they do now. Sure, it might have been the most accurate Hebrew/Greek translation at the time, but English itself has changed a lot in 500 years.

Your reading of it is a perfect demonstration of that fact. If "the Heavens" really was a plural usage, then it would have likely been a reference to the Ptolemic cosmological model which was the accepted one at that time, in which there were 7 "Heavens": Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Fixed Stars.

I didn't see ANY evidence. Paleo-Archaeology shows no such thing.

It does. Here you go:
BBC News - Earliest music instruments found

Music was resonating through the forests of modern Germany 43,000 years ago.

You didn't get this, yet, because what you're doing here is what's called a "Red Herring": that is to say, trying to distract from the fact that you're the one who has no evidence, AND you're the one who's making the claim to have some. That means you're the one who must provide evidence, and we're under no obligation to provide counter-evidence unless and until we make a positive claim. Until this point, all I've said is that your evidence does not indicate what you say it does; I have not until now claimed that you're wrong.

And I quite consider artistic expression to be FAR more indicative of full behavioral modernity than the stuff that came with the Neolithic Revolution, since Tribalism is still an ingrained part of our psychology, and the fact that there's still plenty of Tribes that don't live with the agricultural model.

In any case, agriculture developed fairly independently in different parts of the world. Native Americans developed it entirely without any contact whatsoever with anyone in the Fertile Crescent.

Sure I have. Haven't you noticed that NO Evol has been able to refute me Scientifically, Historically, nor Scripturally? Some, like you, try, and I appreciate you trying, but ALL fail, because what I show IS the Truth in every way. That is WHY I call it God's Truth.

All you do is make claims, with nothing but references to Bible verses (which are irrelevant in the sciences) and a map for your support. You've received very little direct refutation because you've provided hardly anything to refute at all.

Besides, what you think of as "scriptural" refutation isn't even necessary. Scientific inquiry pretends that the Bible, along with all other ancient texts, don't exist.

False, since i show the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History

No you don't. All you've "shown" is a bunch of references to Bible verses, and a map. You've literally shown nothing else.

Scripture correctly shows those FIRST Stars, which blew apart, and supplied the Starstuff of which all of us are made, were made long AFTER the Big Bang. The BB was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 and the First Stars did not light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Now it's your time to tell us HOW ancient men knew this more than 3k years ago since it has just be discovered in this century?

Simple. They didn't know those things, and didn't say those things. God said "Let there be light", and then there was an evening and a morning: a day. There can't be evening or morning, day or night, without planetary rotation. Thing is, if the Big Bang happened on the 3rd day, but light was made on the 1st day, well... that's simply impossible. Light did not exist in our universe until well after the Big Bang.

There is your scriptural and scientific refutation. Genesis does not say what you claim it does, and neither does what it actually says, nor what you claim it says, agree at all with our current understanding of the universe.

And also the refutation provided in the post you quoted: the Sun, Moon, and Stars were not all made at the same time as Genesis claims. The Stars were made before the Earth.

Which means in order to qualify for the status of scientific miracle (a concept I wholeheartedly reject) Genesis should read something like, "In the beginning, God created the Dust that makes All Things. First he made the Stars. Then after several Star Generations, made our Sun. He then made the Earth, the planets, and the Space Rocks which encircle it. Then he made one planet to crash into Earth, and from the dust of both made the Moon."

Sure, and you know better, but you're going to keep the details to yourself?

Details of what?

I simply provided an example of why your logic is flawed.

That's because they are the SAME scientists who are willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally dissolved in the Flood, and that our world will be burned. Right? Read all about it in ll Peter 3:3-7

I don't particularly regard the word of some random dude named Peter who lived 2000 years ago as particularly authoritative on the people who live today. Heck, neither do I regard him as talking about us in any way, since he logically could not have known about us.

Because ONLY God knew and correctly wrote that we live in a Multiverse, that the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day but the Stars didn't appear until the 4th Day. That every living creature that moves, came forth from the water exactly as Science has discovered. Gen 1:21 I've got many more including HOW and WHEN prehistoric animals became Humans.

It didn't say any of those things, as demonstrated above, and you also clearly don't understand how the sciences work.

Multiverse theory is not actually part of the general scientific consensus, and so cannot be regarded as a "discovery". Furthermore, not "every living creature that moves" came from the water; rather, the water is the default home of "every living creature that moves"; far, far more life still lives in water than not.

 

[Thief]

I've been called worse. It would affect me, but I'd probably ask for an explanation before deciding whether to take offense or not.

Just because one insult barely affects me doesn't mean I'm above all insults.

Yeah but.....I suspect the insult would be followed by a drawn sword.
I do suspect the peace of heaven is guarded.

 

[s2a]

Seems then at least a 'few' people were beginning to realize....
just cause it moves and consumes doesn't mean it's alive.

Oh...but what about all those believers back around the time of Moses?!
And that story he told about one man living in ideal living conditions.....
laid to sleep and had a rib removed.....that rib made into a woman.....

UNBELIEVABLE!.....can't happen.....no way.....that's crazy....

but they did believe.
and nowadays we know such things are of science and can be done.

So...what's holding you back?

Well, doesn't that just explain everything?

"Faith" is evidence and proof of...hmmmm...what again?

As I have often noted, numbers of adherents to a particular belief system is NOT evidence of anything beyond gratuitous self-validation of that belief.

2000 years before the advent of "Christianity", there was absolutely no organized monotheistic systems of faith.

NONE.

What does that serve to "prove"?

Absolutely nothing.

Just as "popularity" does nothing to "prove" any invisible space being "exists" today.

Blame the Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, etc.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me"

Whatever is that Commandment supposed to mean anyway?

OTHER "gods"? There are "other" gods?

Really?

Who knew?

I do so wonder where those other "gods" went anyway?

Did they all just go *poof* into the ether and imaginations of ordinary peoples, or did they simply lose a significant number of "believers"?

Did "Idolaters, Inc." just run out of clientele and traders in "action figures"??

Hmmmmm

 

[Aman777]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aman777
Dear Riverwolf, I'm sorry for your confusion. Read Gen 1:6-8 which shows that the FIRST "Heaven" was made the 2nd Day. Perhaps your confusion is caused by your Version of Scripture. Use the King James Version. Then, read Gen 2:4 which shows that other HeavenS (Plural) were made on the THIRD Day, the SAME Day as the formation of Adam's Earth. Gen 1:9-10 Then, add 1 Heaven to other Heavens and you get a minimum of THREE Heavens or Universes within our Multiverse.

First of all, the King Jimmy was the first one I read, and besides the fact that it didn't show any such thing, no, I won't use that one, because the King Jimmy is outdated. >>BIG SNIP of KJV Bashing<<<<

Dear Riverwolf, It is becoming more and more apparent that you have no idea what Scripture is saying. Can you tell us WHEN the first Heaven was made? Can you also tell us WHEN the otherenS were made? Can you tell us the sum of 1+2? Your false accusation that the KJV is outdated is caused by your inability to understand it.

Quote:
I didn't see ANY evidence. Paleo-Archaeology shows no such thing.

It does. Here you go:
BBC News - Earliest music instruments found

Music was resonating through the forests of modern Germany 43,000 years ago.

This is EVIDENCE of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were NOT Humans. They evolved from the common ancestor of Apes and diverged from Chimps some 6 Million years ago. They were smart enough to make flutes but too dumb to plant themselves something to eat, or build a house, or ANY of the other modern Human traits FIRST revealed in the mountains of Ararat. ONLY the descendants of Adam are Human and have his superior intelligence which is like God's. Gen 3:22

You didn't get this, yet, because what you're doing here is what's called a "Red Herring": that is to say, trying to distract from the fact that you're the one who has no evidence, AND you're the one who's making the claim to have some. That means you're the one who must provide evidence, and we're under no obligation to provide counter-evidence unless and until we make a positive claim. Until this point, all I've said is that your evidence does not indicate what you say it does; I have not until now claimed that you're wrong.

That is WHY I am trying to pin you down to specifics. Quit dismissing the Historic FACT that the FIRST evidence of Human farming was in the valleys of the mountains of Ararat, and realize view that man evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, is WRONG. This "belief" is based on the InComplete Theory of Evolution which rejects God's Truth that Humans were made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:7 and "every other living creature" was made on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Can you see the two creations?

And I quite consider artistic expression to be FAR more indicative of full behavioral modernity than the stuff that came with the Neolithic Revolution, since Tribalism is still an ingrained part of our psychology, and the fact that there's still plenty of Tribes that don't live with the agricultural model.

True, but if they have been around for more than 10k years, they were NOT Humans since today's Science CANNOT tell us the difference between human and animal intelligence TODAY, but you seem to have no problem seeing the difference tens of thousands of years ago. Explain HOW you can see what today's scientists CANNOT see. I think you're Bluffing. Either sumbit your evidence or lose.

In any case, agriculture developed fairly independently in different parts of the world. Native Americans developed it entirely without any contact whatsoever with anyone in the Fertile Crescent.

Then you must believe the LORD was lying, Gen 11:9 when He tells us the descendants of Noah (Humans) were scattered over the face of the whole Earth from Babel. Show us the LORD was lying or explain HOW the ancient people, with NO transportation, scattered Human agriculture over the whole face of the Earth, 10k years ago. I don't think you can. Fool me. When it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, I believe you will cave.

Quote:
Sure I have. Haven't you noticed that NO Evol has been able to refute me Scientifically, Historically, nor Scripturally? Some, like you, try, and I appreciate you trying, but ALL fail, because what I show IS the Truth in every way. That is WHY I call it God's Truth.

All you do is make claims, with nothing but references to Bible verses (which are irrelevant in the sciences) and a map for your support. You've received very little direct refutation because you've provided hardly anything to refute at all.

I suppose you forgot to explain HOW ancient men knew that we live in a Multiverse, or the Scientific FACT that Gen 1:21 shows that "every living creature" was made from the water on the 5th Day which was some 3.7 Billion years ago in man's time.

Besides, what you think of as "scriptural" refutation isn't even necessary. Scientific inquiry pretends that the Bible, along with all other ancient texts, don't exist.

Amen, and that is WHY today's Science CANNOT tell us HOW or WHEN Apes evolved Human intelligence. Scripture shows that today's Science is "willingly ignorant" that Adam's world was totally destroyed in the Flood and the first Humans (descendants of Adam) came into our world on an Ark. ll Peter 3:3-7 Science and other Godless groups remain in their Ignorance by choice.

Quote:
False, since i show the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History

No you don't. All you've "shown" is a bunch of references to Bible verses, and a map. You've literally shown nothing else.

Already refuted. See above.

Quote:
Scripture correctly shows those FIRST Stars, which blew apart, and supplied the Starstuff of which all of us are made, were made long AFTER the Big Bang. The BB was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 and the First Stars did not light until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Now it's your time to tell us HOW ancient men knew this more than 3k years ago since it has just be discovered in this century?

Simple. They didn't know those things, and didn't say those things. God said "Let there be light", and then there was an evening and a morning: a day. There can't be evening or morning, day or night, without planetary rotation. Thing is, if the Big Bang happened on the 3rd day, but light was made on the 1st day, well... that's simply impossible. Light did not exist in our universe until well after the Big Bang.

False, since Jesus, Who is brighter than the Noonday Sun, came into the physical world from within the invisible Spirit of God on the FIRST Day. Jesus will ALSO provide the Light for the THIRD Heaven. Rev 21:23 Are you sure you have read the Bible?

There is your scriptural and scientific refutation. Genesis does not say what you claim it does, and neither does what it actually says, nor what you claim it says, agree at all with our current understanding of the universe.

Your disagreement, backed by nothing but Bluff, is NOT a Scriptural nor a Scientific refutation, no matter how smart you think you are.

continued

 

[Aman777]

And also the refutation provided in the post you quoted: the Sun, Moon, and Stars were not all made at the same time as Genesis claims. The Stars were made before the Earth.

Not Adam's Earth, which was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10 FYI, the first Stars of our Cosmos were not made until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 The confusion comes by confusing Adam's world, which was destroyed in the Flood, with the present Earth.

Which means in order to qualify for the status of scientific miracle (a concept I wholeheartedly reject) Genesis should read something like, "In the beginning, God created the Dust that makes All Things. First he made the Stars. Then after several Star Generations, made our Sun. He then made the Earth, the planets, and the Space Rocks which encircle it. Then he made one planet to crash into Earth, and from the dust of both made the Moon."

In the beginning, God made the heaven (air) and the earth (ground without form). Jesus took some of this air, ground and water and inflated it at the Big Bang. Then the first Stars formed and put forth their light some 13.7 Billion years ago, and then your scenario began to unfold. Don't you know the story?

Quote:
Sure, and you know better, but you're going to keep the details to yourself?
Details of what?

I simply provided an example of why your logic is flawed.

Only in your dreams. Look back and you will find that ALL of your views have been soundly refuted by the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History.


Quote:
That's because they are the SAME scientists who are willingly ignorant that Adam's world was totally dissolved in the Flood, and that our world will be burned. Right? Read all about it in ll Peter 3:3-7

I don't particularly regard the word of some random dude named Peter who lived 2000 years ago as particularly authoritative on the people who live today. Heck, neither do I regard him as talking about us in any way, since he logically could not have known about us.

You mistake Peter penning the words, which the Holy Spirit moved him to write from within him. The Holy Spirit is the Author, which makes it impossible for YOU, a mere mortal man, to refute. It's not your fault since they probably brain washed you as a child.

Quote:
Because ONLY God knew and correctly wrote that we live in a Multiverse, that the Big Bang was on the 3rd Day but the Stars didn't appear until the 4th Day. That every living creature that moves, came forth from the water exactly as Science has discovered. Gen 1:21 I've got many more including HOW and WHEN prehistoric animals became Humans.

It didn't say any of those things, as demonstrated above, and you also clearly don't understand how the sciences work.

Multiverse theory is not actually part of the general scientific consensus, and so cannot be regarded as a "discovery". Furthermore, not "every living creature that moves" came from the water; rather, the water is the default home of "every living creature that moves"; far, far more life still lives in water than not.

Watch the following Video to catch up on the Science regarding our Multiverse. It's an old video but ahead of your thinking. Any day now, the Europeans may be announcing what God told us in Genesis. Parallel universes. [VIDEO] Thank you for trying. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Aman777]

The holy scriptures never say 3.7 billion years anywhere.Noah was not here on earth 10,000 years ago according to scripture.If you go by what scripture says,it points out that man is a little over 6,000 years old.The earth could be possibly billions of years old,but man is only 6,000 years old.According to scripture.

Dear Bible Student, Scripture shows that Adam was made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our cosmos, which was some 13.7 Billion years ago. Gen 2:4-7 Adam lived with Jesus for some 10 Billion years BEFORE Eve was made on the 6th Day. Adam was made BEFORE the Stars, Sun, Moon, and EVERY living creature that moves, which were not made until the 5th Day, some 3.7 Billion years ago.

Your dating is the dating of ancient goatherders who claim the morning of the Creation was 5774 years ago. Christians have believed that the dating of Archbishop James Ussher was correct, since his Flawed dating, which was done in 1650, was included in the Margins of the KJV until the 1950s. You have swallowed the views of ancient men and NOT what is actually written in Scripture. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Nada]

Dear Bible Student, Scripture shows that Adam was made on the 3rd Day, the SAME Day as the Big Bang of our cosmos, which was some 13.7 Billion years ago. Gen 2:4-7 Adam lived with Jesus for some 10 Billion years BEFORE Eve was made on the 6th Day. Adam was made BEFORE the Stars, Sun, Moon, and EVERY living creature that moves, which were not made until the 5th Day, some 3.7 Billion years ago.

Your dating is the dating of ancient goatherders who claim the morning of the Creation was 5774 years ago. Christians have believed that the dating of Archbishop James Ussher was correct, since his Flawed dating, which was done in 1650, was included in the Margins of the KJV until the 1950s. You have swallowed the views of ancient men and NOT what is actually written in Scripture. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Good morning Aman777.Let me start off by saying that your statement about Adam being created on the third day is incorrect brother.Gods Word tells us other wise.In Genesis 1:27-31 it specifically tells us that male and female were created on the sixth day.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


IT SAYS CLERLY THAT IT WAS THE SIXTH DAY.

Adam was not created the same day as the big bang.

You seem to be confusing Genesis CH.2 with the accounts in CH.1 All CH.2 is doing is giving you a quick rundown of all that occurred in days 1-7.It then goes into specific detail on how Eve was created.

If you notice,CH.2 begins with it declaring the 7th day,and that God finished.It never ever states a third day.What you are doing is reading what it says in 2:4-7 and assuming it is speaking of the third day only because it is speaking of plants.This is a common mistake amongst many who try to interpret the scriptures using their own reasoning brother.It is giving you a sequence of events that occurred on days 1-7 then coming to the point when Eve was created from Adams rib.

It clearly states in Genesis 1:27-31 that man and woman were created on the sixth day,not the third.

Im sorry to tell you this brother but you are actually incorrect on everything you have stated.

The creation of this universe could of happened billions of years ago.But,man was created 6040 years ago.Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E. So it is not man that is billions of years old.The earth is.Man has only been on earth a little over 6,000 years.

If you read old manuscripts of the Genesis account it says exactly everything that I stated.These manuscripts predate your 1650 date by much.

Instead of relying on views of men you have been swept away by false doctrines and man made beliefs brother.Gods word is very clear.

 

[Aman777]

Good morning Aman777.Let me start off by saying that your statement about Adam being created on the third day is incorrect brother.Gods Word tells us other wise.In Genesis 1:27-31 it specifically tells us that male and female were created on the sixth day.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.


IT SAYS CLERLY THAT IT WAS THE SIXTH DAY.

Dear Bible Student, I totally agree that Adam and Eve were BOTH created in God's image or born again Spiritually at the SAME time on the SIXTH Day. However:

Adam was formed of the dust of the ground on the SAME Day of the Big Bang. Here are the verses:

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,


The first Earth was made the THIRD Day. Gen 1:9-10 The first Heaven was made the SECOND Day. Gen 1:6-8 The other HeavenS were made on this SAME 3rd Day. One of those other HeavenS is our Cosmos. Gen 2:4 is telling us that on the Day the LORD God/Jesus made Adam's Earth, He also made other HeavenS, Plural. We live in a Multiverse because God tells us this in Genesis. No man, of the time, could have possibly known this. It's proof of God.

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.





So far, the Day being spoken of is the THIRD Day, the SAME Day that plants, herbs, and Trees GREW. Gen 1:12 Why so much importance on establishing the dating of this event?

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The word "formed" in Hebrew is interesting, since it means shaping man as a Potter molds the Clay. This is NOT the Creation of Adam, but instead, is his forming, physically, by the Hands of Jesus, the only God ever formed physically or that ever will be formed physically. When you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father.


8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Just to absolutely confirm that Adam was formed the THIRD Day, notice that the Trees which Gen 1:12 shows GREW on the 3rd Day are planted AFTER Adam was made.

Adam was not created the same day as the big bang.

I agree. Adam was formed on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Adam was "created" on the 6th Day. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 Notice that Adam was NOT created until AFTER Eve was made on the 6th Day. Gen 2:22 This is because BOTH of them were created Spiritually at the SAME time. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2 With your understanding, let's see you explain that.

You seem to be confusing Genesis CH.2 with the accounts in CH.1 All CH.2 is doing is giving you a quick rundown of all that occurred in days 1-7.It then goes into specific detail on how Eve was created.

Never underestimate the wisdom of God. Here is the Chronology. Gen 1 is the complete History of the 6 Creative Days, including events which will NOT happen until AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth at the end of time. The next 3 verses tell us of a FUTURE Day, when God rests from ALL of His work of creating. It's the 7th Day, which has no evening and no end. It's Eternity.

If you notice,CH.2 begins with it declaring the 7th day,and that God finished.It never ever states a third day.What you are doing is reading what it says in 2:4-7 and assuming it is speaking of the third day only because it is speaking of plants.This is a common mistake amongst many who try to interpret the scriptures using their own reasoning brother.It is giving you a sequence of events that occurred on days 1-7 then coming to the point when Eve was created from Adams rib.

After the Entire History of the Creation is told in the first 34 verses of the Bible, we come to Genesis 2:4 which takes us BACK to the events of the 3rd Day as i explained above. God told us the entire HISTORY of His creation of the perfect Heaven, and the details of those 7 Days are told in the rest of the Bible. That's God's Truth, Scripturally.

It clearly states in Genesis 1:27-31 that man and woman were created on the sixth day,not the third.

Im sorry to tell you this brother but you are actually incorrect on everything you have stated.

I understand. Why don't you show me Scripturally where I am wrong, brother? Scripture tells me to try the Spirits, you know? I've noticed that you don't quote Scripture a lot, and seem to be confused by what it actually says. It's as if your training was by a 3k year old goatherder.

The creation of this universe could of happened billions of years ago.But,man was created 6040 years ago.Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E. So it is not man that is billions of years old.The earth is.Man has only been on earth a little over 6,000 years.

Hey, that is what the goatherders taught. The dating comes from Ussher in 1650. Haven't you learned anything since then? Since we have Human cities dating to some 10k years ago, explain where they came from, if you think you can. Here is a map of them. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

If you read old manuscripts of the Genesis account it says exactly everything that I stated.These manuscripts predate your 1650 date by much.

Of course they do. Goatherder theology goes all the way back to the beginning, but their leaders, wound up calling for the Crucifixion of their own God. Why do you follow their views? Ussher did the same because he also lived before Science.

Instead of relying on views of men you have been swept away by false doctrines and man made beliefs brother.Gods word is very clear.

I agree, but I don't agree with Goatherder Theology because it is NOT the Truth Scripturally, Scientifically, nor Historically. It's a Religion of ancient men and does NOT agree with what is actually written in God's Holy Word. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Shad]

Can you give issue number of Scientific American where is was said? I remember that it was something fishy about this quote when I researched it last time. It wasn't an article in SA but a piece of opinion, or it was a book that was just quoted. I can't remember the exact problem. So please provide which volume and issue, and page number if you have it.

B.Student is quote mining or reading a quote mining article.

With great perception, Sagan sees that there is an impediment to the popular credibility of scientific claims about the world, an impediment that is almost invisible to most scientists. Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. When, at the time of the moon landing, a woman in rural Texas was interviewed about the event, she very sensibly refused to believe that the television pictures she had seen had come all the way from the moon, on the grounds that with her antenna she couldn't even get Dallas. What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity &quot;in deep trouble.&quot; Two's company, but three's a crowd. Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

It is about people accepting unprove supernatural ideas as explaination of scienece as believers. If one proposes a unverified God as an answer to a question and it is accepted another person could suggest another god or time-traveling Dr Who or magic pink unicrons. It opens a flood gate of supersitition in which any unverified belief can be injected into science without following scientific methods. It breaks the system in order to become part of the system. Hence why "God" is part of philosopy of religion and not that of science.